The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order discharging a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a real estate transaction.
The plaintiff argued the motions judge erred in finding the property was not unique, that damages were an adequate remedy, and in relying on a no-registration clause.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's exercise of discretion and concluding that the issues did not transcend the interests of the parties.
